The good cops don't make the news.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And, also, reality TV is produced and edited.
Printable View
The good cops don't make the news.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And, also, reality TV is produced and edited.
Actually, there was a good NPR bit about Full Moon Madness and the Ride-Along Curse, which I could dig up.
But just like when someone is watching over your shoulders while you type and all of the sudden you type like a retard, having a different audience changes you.
I live next to a cop. Our gardens border. Over the summer, he had workers doing up his garden, and they caught a whiff of what I was smoking. So, what does the cop do? Does he come and knock on my door and warn me? No. He moans at the boss of my next door neighbour. What kind of arsehole does that? The poor woman next door was stressing about her job because of what I was smoking. It had nothing to do with next door, but he just wanted to be the big guy, right? Fucking twat.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
That's a typcial cop here.
Is it?
Yup. Maybe you have better cops than we do.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I know cops and their douche-baggary, I think I had a post earlier in this thread about hearing my buddy cop talk about encounters as mine-fields of gotcha-bombs, but that's the job they have to work and that's the way they're told to work it.
Like I said before, cops kill people because of how the company trains them and tells them to deal with situations. It's the case for how they behave in near every spot.
I don't see why a cop should holster his gun and have a clean fight with a random criminal who may or not be a martial arts expert / bad ass mother fucker.
We're not a million miles apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Dan, I'm not suggesting fisticuffs. I'm simply saying that when an unarmed person is shot, it should not be with the intention to kill, unless it is reasonable he poses a serious threat even if shot.
And if you apply that notion, after a few people die for falling on the wrong side of 'serious' soon too many threats will be treated seriously. And then you'll be at present day USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Torrent this docu http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096257/
I don't think this is a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Maybe that's not the best example, I only vaguely remember the details of the movie. But there's a reason a cop will approach your window and stay somewhat behind the back-edge of the door. Cops have been dropped with no warning and the door-frame gives protection from a shooter.
When life collides with ideals...Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The title made me laugh. We had a dodgy comedy police thing in the 90's called The Thin Blue Line.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I think it had Rimmer from Red Dwarf in it.
I might watch that later if it's on putlocker or youtube or whatever.
Surely cop risk and criminal death reaches it's own natural equilibrium.
Well the problem here is an armed population, because very very rarely does a cop get shot in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Plus when you shoot, you aim for the torso. Always. You ain't gonna pinpoint target his shoulder to avoid serious injury. Further away from the centre equals closer to missing and hitting something or someone else.
In facm this conversation is stupid. I don't think police shoot to kill in the first place. They shoot to stop. And minimise bystander risk when they do so.
Well this is once again down to training.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
You're right. If I were going to shoot someone, I'd aim for the torso in case I wasn't accurate.
If I were a highly trained armed cop, I'd aim for the shoulder.
Most conversations here are stupid. And there's people here arguing that shooting to kill is exactly what they should do.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
How accurate do do you think a pistol is? Once you've answered that question, realise you're wrong.
This is fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Ok, I'll rephrase.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
If I were a highly trained armed cop, I'd know what I was talking about.
Lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5qDRDPI2xQ
This is why they tell you to stay in the car, otherwise treat you like you'll kill them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4FbLm99znU
Just that easy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tRGf__sTAg
And you're aware of every single one of these videos because you're job is the same as those being shot at.
And you live in a nation with strict drug laws and 3-strike rules where someone carrying a teenth of coke might be looking at a life sentence, and all of the sudden, you feel like... who knows? Like you need to be ready for violence.
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
Maybe, maybe not. There are a lot of problems and there's always the looming possibility that the many problems of the UK are simply canceling each other outQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI0euMFAWF8
Wait.... what?
You guys have an amount of coke commonly called a tenth?
teenth.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
The tiny amount you rub on your teeth/gums.
America, fuck yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
teenth, like weed.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
1.75g
A sixteenth of an ounce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Glad you got there.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Well, the greater the perceived risk to the cop, given experience of said cop and general perceived experience of cops, of a given situation, the higher the chance of the criminal being shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Makes sense to me.
And likewise, the given perceived risk to a criminal of being shot, the less likely said criminal is to act in a way that leads to him being shot.
So risk of cop dying vs risk of criminal being shot adjusted for likely incarceration time and propensity to accept said time equals chance of being shot.
I am drunk, s o.may have fucked that up, but why wouldn't there be a natural rate of criminal death by cop for a given set of risks and rewards for each party?
Of course it is.
Damn those mods deleting their posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
Alright, I threw out a lowball, but I want to pitch a sidewinder.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
Because there's a difference between the prisoner's dilemma and how people treat the prisoner's dilemma.
Give it a minute.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
And for the record, I said, "because Life's not math"
Amd if I'm right, and I've no reason whatsoever to believe I am, sorely the.more interesting conversation is what level is acceptable and how far you are willing to go to reduce it.
I wanted to agree with your eqilibrium thing because I liked your language.
But I just couldn't figure out what you meant.
What level of what?Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
This is my difficulty with a lot of stuff that starts to assume economist terminology. No one is measuring nothing and nobody can check anything. Everything is fungible. You can find a metric to suit whatever reality you want if you're willing to look hard enough.
Pulling from another thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I was thinking "yeah if the cops shoot all the criminals then eventually the cops are killing no criminals and the criminals are killing no cops because there's no fucking criminals left, they're all shot".
But I didn't think that's what you meant.
And sorry Ong, for lining you up like that. But I think I'm stupid too, if it helps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yeah I'm being wild and loose with my language.
You'd prob have a different level of death by cop for each different scenario.
But let's say holding less than one once of cocaine when pulled over for speeding.
For that scenario, given the risks and rewards for both parties, their must exist a rate of criminal death by cop. And this rate could be changed for future interactions by changing the perceived risks and rewards of both parties.
All good. fwiw, I'm not nearly as clever as I used to be. As a 7-y/o, I was able to figure out mathematical forumlas that adults struggled with. Now, all I can do is play chess to a slightly better standard than spoon.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
NEVER LET THIS GO! NEVER!Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Honestly, I think I'll still be talking crap in this forum when I'm in my 70's, and I'll still brag this shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
And back to the equilibrium, it's the natural rate for the.perceived risks.
I wasn't being shitty. Never let this go!Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I know the intention is to mock spoon, but actually it accidentally compliments him. I mean if I feel so great about beating him at chess, I must think he's a smart guy.
Well, yeah, but you're getting into something I really don't understand at all - how incentives motivate people. You figure that out, and you'll be a very powerful man.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
F (the rest of yall)I:
Fungible:
(of goods contracted for without an individual specimen being specified) replaceable by another identical item; mutually interchangeable.
I'm normally good with spelling, but I had to check which was right out of compliment and complement. I ninja'd that last post twice.
Dunno, you can always go safer.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
In my mind, it's like taking some clay and changing it over and over to suit whatever form you need.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
Pfft, you outmeasure spoon in at least one other way.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Figuring it out and being able to use that info ain't the same thing. Seems being able to use it and.unable to figure it out is far more.profitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Yeah, well, I'm on the one side of that coin.
Bit relating that to the topic at hand, n obody has an answer. There aren't enough data points to build a reliable model because culture moves at one pace which accelerates at a whim, and law moves at another pace which is certainly slower. So that's where the fun is. Decision.makers. playing with lives with each guesstimate.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
I agree. I've said it before. If you want to talk about truths that you can't put words to, I'm all about 'em. Some times you know the answer then have to work to get others to follow along. But you can never trust anyone else to be doing it, because it's too easy to fake.
PS torrent this docu http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/
I know he definitely touches on this.
This. He definitely touches on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
Drunk sleep awaits. I've enjoyed this. I miss arguing here.
By not being American?Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Post name.of.doc,link won't work.
Stop fishin.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Nah, the other way.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Fog of War. It's an interview with Robert McNamara while he was still sharp in the twilight of his years.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
rilla hasn't seen my huge dick, so it's not that.
I dunno why I laughed.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
For the same reason I hit submit, even though it's an obviously inane comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Immaturity.
Honestly, the entire documentary really touches on all of this post. I really can't recommend it enough to anyone who cares enough to read either of these posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
I'm a grown man. I talk about sophisticated things like King Charles and Robert McNamara!Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm nearly 37, and I still impress myself when I fart.
Sign of a good diet, though, right?
You don't mean accurate. You mean precise.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Accuracy is the location of the center of mass of your bullets on the target.
Precision is the tightness of the grouping of your bullets on the target.
Accuracy is the mean, or average. Precision is the variance or deviation from the mean.
https://49.media.tumblr.com/97d0cd6f...4315o1_500.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KZrqXzDGTw...1600/vfad6.pngQuote:
A few days ago Mr Trump suggested that British Police were too scared to walk through certain parts of London. Using the power of science I put together the following 'scientific' diagram to show that Americans must be much more scared of their own dogs.
Amazing gif, but I really disagree. For one, words always sprawl. That's why literally has the opposite meaning these days. Two, you can be accurate to something other than dead-center-mass.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Islamic terrorism is as dangerous to Americans as falling icicles...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OjuLTOW_BN...1600/vhhhx.png
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Pulling from another thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Yeah ok that last one is cheeky because it's from 2002 onwards.
But it still made me laugh.
My post was aimed at Trump, btw
Sunset clauses wouldn't matter. Everyone is terrified of being "soft on crime", which is why it's taking so long for reform. It's a reason more "Donald trumps" would actually be a good thing. .. at least in terms of not caring about that shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
As far as law degrees, those don't give you expertise in any area of law. You gain that through practice alone. I agree with you that it's rediculous that someone has to spend years developing a mastery of any one particular area though.
lol I thought it was about rong when you first posted it.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Yeah, I'm told I speak nonsense. I'll try to be more clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
wtf happened to this thread
we have very different cultures in many ways, and some of them are where our extra crime arises.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
it depends. sometimes it's the correct course of action. if you come into my home and we're alone and you try to punch me, the correct place for a bullet is your brain. the funny thing here is that the vast majority of the time, those who would have full right to shoot you, still wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
we've gotten soft and weak. we've lost our sense of honor and we've lost our sense of responsibility. it's a virus. it's so bad that nearly all of us are a part of the problem, but few will admit it.
Not that I have a great deal of sympathy for people who go into people's homes and get shot, no I don't agree that the brain is where you should want the bullet to be. What the fuck is wrong with people when a human life is so worthless as to be willingly wasted just because he's in your house? No he shouldn't be there, fine shoot him. But don't actually aim for the fucking head, give the guy a chance.Quote:
it depends. sometimes it's the correct course of action. if you come into my home and we're alone and you try to punch me, the correct place for a bullet is your brain. the funny thing here is that the vast majority of the time, those who would have full right to shoot you, still wouldn't.
Honestly, I'd rather just be burgled than kill a man.
i didnt say anything about getting burgled or about shooting somebody becasue they're in your home
huh?
Quote:
if you come into my home...
So you're putting a bullet in my brain just for throwing a punch?
Fuck.
are you telling me that you read what i said and think that the reason im shooting you is becuase you're in my home and not because we're alone and you're trying to punch me, and if you're successful, i could be knocked out and i have no idea if your intention is to kill me or whatever?
Well, I'm kinda role playing here in the sense I'm only in your home if I'm an intruder, in which case the fact I'm intruding is reason enough to shoot me. I mean if we're talking about me being invited, and I take a swing for you in your own home, then putting a bullet in my brain is fucking sick. I dunno how that even comes close to a reasonable reaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Most of the chance of dying comes from falling and hitting your head on something. There were several examples in the link I gave above.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
As an aside, I think it's interesting how people tend to take all responsibility away from the aggressor in situations like the Trayvon case (and much like what you've described in some of your responses on this).
I tend to hate people in general, so this doesn't change things for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
You're absolutely correct in this. When an unarmed person is shot, it's to stop the threat. These are not the same things in theory or practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
That doesn't make an armed population a problem. It actually indicates the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The voice of reason once again...Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
...which just went out the window again.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Let me put it this way so that there's [hopefully] no confusion: No amount of training makes this a good idea.
Not a single person has argued that.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I resigned a won endgame in my first tournament game against a master when I was ~1450 or so, so there's that. I'd just come off of a win against a ~1950, who was the highest-rated person I'd ever beaten in tournament play at that point. /randomQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What the fuck is wrong with people when their own life is so worthless as to be willingly wasted just by punching someone in the face? This is where the responsibility wufwugy was talking about comes into play.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Some of this is just poor story telling.
Wuf didn't initially say "punched in the face". Still, what punch means can be relative. If I punch you in the shoulder, it's rediculous that you'd shoot me over it. That's just what guys do, and if you were so harmed by such a gesture...just sue or call the cops or whatever. Never shooting. Legally, you shouldn't shoot in this situation either.
But punched in the face, that can be very different. It matters a ton what the intent here is...and I don't mean intent like...wanting to hit. I mean was this a punch intended to cause harm? Did he put his weight behind it? You don't need to be all sciency, anyone who's been in a fight knows what a real punch looks like. In those circumstances, ya, shooting is probably reasonable.
Agree that in the arm/leg/shoulder, even head are just impracticle. Maybe even impossible. It's hard to hit a bullseye, and even harder when it's moving.
When did we become so afraid of everybody though? I walked to and from school alone when I was as young as 7. Now kids aren't even allowed to play outside. This fear of others and always assuming the worst isn't good for us.
I thought you did, amd mojo certainly did.Quote:
Not a single person has argued that.
I'm saying shoot to disable, and if you kill, well you tried to be reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
But this can happen chasing a criminal. Is a cop justified in shooting someone who committed a misdemeanor, who is running away, on the basis that chasing him risks his life?Quote:
Most of the chance of dying comes from falling and hitting your head on something. There were several examples in the link I gave above.
The probability of dying when punched, whether due to being hit sweetly, or falling and banging your head, is extremely low. I know it happens, my ex witnessed this happen in a street fight in my town a few years back and had to call the cops. But people get punched in the head all the time, noone expects it to result in death.
That's because cops are supposed to act responsibly. Where that's the case, all sympathy for the aggressor evaporates.Quote:
As an aside, I think it's interesting how people tend to take all responsibility away from the aggressor in situations like the Trayvon case (and much like what you've described in some of your responses on this).
It does. If the population is armed, then the police have to be too. There's no way around that. And when all cops are armed, then it means training them to elite status is impractical.Quote:
That doesn't make an armed population a problem. It actually indicates the opposite.
We're not an armed nation, and cops rarely die on duty. As a result, cops rarely feel the need to shoot. So an unarmed population is not making the problem worse. If that were true, our figures would make worse reading than yours.
Yeah I realise I'm way off base here. I'm not trained in gun handling, which is exactly why I'm naive about it.Quote:
Let me put it this way so that there's [hopefully] no confusion: No amount of training makes this a good idea.
But fights happen all the time, often for good reason, and often it is necessary to resolve issues. My problem here is, if it's ok to shoot someone in the head for punching you, then fights are gonna get out of hand really fucking quickly, with little legal consequences for those who decide to "protect" themselves by wasting a human being.Quote:
What the fuck is wrong with people when their own life is so worthless as to be willingly wasted just by punching someone in the face? This is where the responsibility wufwugy was talking about comes into play.
If I go to punch someone in the head, I'm really not expecting it to result in me getting shot. Not unless I try punching a badass gangsta, anyway.
I've only ever once beaten a 2000+ player. My rating got above 1900 on gameknot in long games, I'm currently under 1500 in 10min blitz games on chess.com though. I dunno how accurate these rating are in relation to ELO.Quote:
I resigned a won endgame in my first tournament game against a master when I was ~1450 or so, so there's that. I'd just come off of a win against a ~1950, who was the highest-rated person I'd ever beaten in tournament play at that point. /random
when did we become so afraid of each other? i think when we started changing the narrative from responsibility to victimhood. and when we focused only on the idea that aggressors are victims themselves and that the only people truly responsible for solving problems are official authorities.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
the safer places to be are the places where people take responsibility for their own situations. you're much more likely to get shot in one of the many inner city victimhood capitals of the world than at a rural montanan's ranch.